Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Just the right spot...

I find the group of evos here some what interesting.....They seem to enjoy talking down to creationist.

But I have a question for these intelligent evos....

You guys claim that mutations happen....are naturally selected...then eventually added to the population.

Mutations are also RANDOM.

The evo claim is that these mutations add up over time in an animals future generations to produce new body parts, appendages and organs.....morphological change.

Then the evos tell us that most mutations are neutral, some are harmful and very few are beneficial.

Then we discover that the human DNA has about 3,200,000,000 base pairs. (...FUN FACT...If each DNA base pair were 1 mile long they would reach from here to Pluto)

So, about these "beneficial" RANDOM mutations adding up, Just how do they do it?

What are the odds of a RANDOM mutation occurring in just the right spot in the DNA many, many times, over and over again untill something like the dolphins echo-location system is formed?

Thank you trollobyte.

We don't claim that mutations happen. We know for a fact they happen. But the next time you get an infection ... don't take one of those new fangled antibiotics used to combat evolved forms of bacteria. I wouldn't want you to compromise your faith in the invisible purple rhinoceros.

For those that are still capable of sentience:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060811091251.htm
More proof of the obvious.

DA Morgan,
Thanks for the link, most interesting...but the question the article fails to mention is whether or not mutations caused the shell thickening or whether a variation of genes simply caused it.

But the bacteria. What of the bacteria? Is this the best you got? Seriously DA. Is this the best you got? Was a mutation involved? How many mutations? 1? 1000?

A thicker shell or a "mutated" bacteria is a long, long, long way from creating a new body part, appendage or organ....but then again you already knew that, didn't you DA Morgan?

It seems as if the question in post 1 is still up for discussion as it was not answered by DA Morgan...wanna try again DA?

Trollobyte wrote:
"Thanks for the link, most interesting...but the question the article fails to mention is whether or not mutations caused the shell thickening or whether a variation of genes simply caused it."

ROFL!

Are you wholly ignorant of biology and chemistry or is this just trolling?

Variation of genes ... hmmm ... that's a difficult one. Genes are chemicals composed of atoms. Are you saying that it is possible that the atoms have changed ... that the genes have changed ... but that this is NOT evolution?

ROFL!

Hear that everyone ... genes can change ... but it is not evolution ... it is something else ... perhaps demons tinkering with the mechanism.

ROFL!

You folks never cease to amaze those of us that are conscious.

But as you've given me something, albeit a laugh, ... I'll give you something in return.

Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind.
~ Rev. Donald Morgan (not related)

heres a few facts for you to consider.

the first man, that we can completely say was man's ancestor. was only a very short, very small person. (i cant really say how tall, but i beiieve it was 3 feet). now thousands of years later we have humans reaching 7 feet. this is because of mutations in the genes. we still have 3 foot tall humans, rare, but they do exist. why, because their genes have not proven harmfull to the humans that carried them. therefore, they have not been eliminated. some genes are harmfull (like lepersy) but they dont show up in ever individual that carries them, because there is another gene from the other parent that overrides it, or they dont show up until after the person has passed it on to their children.

many animals have changed over the last few thousand years, as a result of mans involvement. a perfect example is the fox terrior. it was bred for being the size it is to chase foxes. some one found a dog with a mutated gene that was the perfect size for being a fox hound and bred it with others. the result is a dog that has both genes for the right size, shape, and instincts for the job.

I assume you meant to say "leprosy" in your post, dehammer. Are you aware that leprosy is a communicable disease caused by a bacterium, Mycobacterium hansenii, and has nothing to do with genetics? And the only organism besides man known to contract it is the Nine Banded Armadillo, Dasypus novemcinctus?

Just thought I'd pass that along.

OK, bad example. i thought it was similar to other Lupus and narcolepsy and other auto immune diseases in that it had a genetic component.

DA.Morgan...you do understand that variations with in a species can produce differences in an offspring with out the need for mutations? Right? You can't be that ignorant of the subject...although you appear to be.

Although with the above method of "evolution" there is limits.

I suggest you go learn about what the evos call MICRO-evolution and MACRO-evolution.

Then get back to me.

trollobyte wrote:
"you do understand that variations with in a species can produce differences in an offspring with out the need for mutations? Right?"

Oh I do indeed but that is NOT what you wrote. Here's what you wrote:

"the article fails to mention is whether or not mutations caused the shell thickening or whether a variation of genes simply caused it"

Do you see anything in what you wrote about variations within a species? Good. Because it IS NOT there. A pathetic attempt to escape the fact that you were caught methinks.

Trollobyte continues:
"Although with the above method of "evolution" there is limits."

Oh really? Define it and provide a reference that substantiations your belief system.

Trollobyte continues:
"I suggest you go learn about what the evos call MICRO-evolution and MACRO-evolution."

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. It has nothing to do with the topic and nothing to do with what you wrote when you decided to be a troll in a science forum.

Want to keep this up I've got a suggestion for you. I post with my real name and I teach at a major US university. Why don't you stop hiding in anonymity and tell us who you are and your background. Are don't ethics and morality stand for anything in your faith?

"What are the odds of a RANDOM mutation occurring in just the right spot in the DNA many, many times, over and over again untill something like the dolphins echo-location system is formed?"

Why? Evolution may violate your intuition, but it doesn't violate any known statistical laws applied to biology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

"God did it" may be sufficient for some religious fanatics, but it's not sufficient for the scientist.

DA Morgan, please don't be so dense...Thank God I'm not one of your students.

Once again the question the article fails to mention is whether or not mutations caused the shell thickening or whether a variation of "already established" genes caused the shells toi thicken.

Why do you ASSUME it had to be a mutation?

Why? Evolution may violate your intuition, but it doesn't violate any known statistical laws applied to biology.

A computer program does not demonstrate evolution very accurately.

Trollobyte wrote:
"Thank God I'm not one of your students."

Don't worry. No one gets into my classes without my interviewing them in advance and approving them. Thats how gradulate level programs work.

You don't have a question. You have a point of view. One well flagged by your use of 'evos' in the same way another troll might use 'fascist' or 'commie' or 'racist'. Labels are for those that can't think harder than a sound bite.

Your meant...Thats how biased gradulate level programs work.

Of course I do wonder about you..you never really seem to answer any questions.

Is the name of your course AD-Homs 101?

That is exactly what I meant.

We have a strong bias against letting those who are hard of thinking into our lecture halls to breathe our oxygen and use our space.

This allows us to condemn them to saying cool stuff like "do you want fries with that" for the rest of their trivial meaningless lives.

Happy now?

ROTFLMHO

Can you both get back to the topic at hand and stop the attacks? Some courtesy and respect for others is in order. Otherwise I will edit and/or delete. You have been warned.

Amaranth
Moderator

and exactly how do you define "hard of thinking". many scientist and inventors would have been classified as "hard of thinking" in the time before their invention or discovery came about.

tff: Why? Evolution may violate your intuition, but it doesn't violate any known statistical laws applied to biology.

tri: A computer program does not demonstrate evolution very accurately.

That is utterly irrelevant to the point. Evolution does not violate any known statistical laws applied to biology. Neither does abiogenesis. They may violate your sense of what's right. They may make you feel bad. but they don't violate any known scientific or statistical laws.

Here's a dilemma. Creationists and ID advocates come into this forum as they do to so many others. They assert that afer their careful study and evaluation of the evidence that evolution is false, and then proffer some esoteric) factoids that support their rejection of evolution.

In the process of doing this, it becomes evident that either 1) their facts are spurious and/or 2) their logic is faulty, but moreover, they often make their point in such a way as to convey that they know almost nothing of consequence about what the theory of evolution actually IS, which indicates to the knowledgeable reader that either they are lying or exaggerating their careful research or they do not know what careful research is or both.

Furthermore, they typically come in here talking about "evos" or what have you and being exceedingly derogatory towards science and scientists and then immediately start whining when one points out that they've made numerous fundamental errors that even beginning students of evolution would recognize as such.

It's possible these trenchant fellows might be brilliant within their own purviews - music or gardening or carpentry or what have you. They also "know" lots about evolution that is completely nonsensical, but almost nothing about it that is actually a part of the theory itself.

I'm not sure how we should treat them. I think the right thing to do is to tell them to go do some homework - some real homework on the subject. Learn about what evolution ACTUALLY says and what it ACTUALLY predicts and THEN develop an opinion of it. But they have a very firm opinion based entirely on a misrepresentation of it.

dehammer wrote:
"and exactly how do you define "hard of thinking". many scientist and inventors would have been classified as "hard of thinking" in the time before their invention or discovery came about."

That is urban mythology ... not reality.

prove it. where are your links? or is that just your opinion?

The game is over until you are willing to meet me half way so you've got it backward. I'm tired of doing your research for you just to have it misrepresented. You substantiate that there is any support for what you wrote which we both know you can not do.

roflol

Just for the record, post 1 has not been answered.

My thoughts are that the evos don't really know.

Just how do those random mutations have the ability to occur again and again in just the right place over and over many, many times so that a new body part, organ or appendage is formed?

Why do you evos shy away fromt his question?

An intellectually lazy person asked:

"What are the odds of a RANDOM mutation occurring in just the right spot in the DNA many, many times, over and over again untill something like the dolphins echo-location system is formed?"

If he had done one iota of anything even remotely resembly homework, he would realize this is an idiotic question. It's actually a GOOD question from, say, a small child, or a teenager like Tim who really doesn't know anything about it.

But the asker's sciolism intends to convey that he has some special insight into the question ... that the "evos" know the answer, but they're afraid of the facts.

Of course, most of the people on this forum have actually done something akin to real homework on the subject, but fortunately he asker's abject ignorance prevent him from being embarrassed.

As I realize he will *never* do an honest day's homework on the subject, I will attempt to answer his question as I would for a teenager whose incompetent mentors never taught him how to look things up.

Let's repeat the question.
"What are the odds of a RANDOM mutation occurring in just the right spot in the DNA many, many times, over and over again untill something like the dolphins echo-location system is formed?"

The answer is "The question is nonsense." Your question has the tacit assumption that the echo-location system was the result of a planned process. If that is not an underlying assumption, then your question is idiotic.

First, many different mutations and selections might have been successful that might have yielded other organs equally as complex that might have produced advanage. Certainly this actually happened for all descendent species of the same common ancestor.

Second, there are multiple paths to similar structures.

Do your homework and you won't sound like a pompous ignoramous.

Troglodyte, it appears that you are having trouble coming to grips with the concept of evolution. Perhaps if you substitute the term "variation" for "mutation" it would be easier to fathom. Also, may I recommend a book entitled "The Song of the Dodo" by David Quammen?

to try to get it as simple as possible. there are thousands of variations in that one spot. many dont survive. others cause the animal to not be able to compete as effectively and thus are elimiated. the ones that dont do anything or improve the animals chances are the ones that get pass along to the next generation.

its not like the ones in that one area are the only ones that are haveing variations either.

heres an example.

lets take the one that created insulin. when it was created there was likely several others that came along first that cause the part to creat a poison, which killed the host. others did improve the host, but left it stirile. others did nothing and got pass along, but then the one that created insulin came along and was such an improvement that the others died out.

It appears that the evos on this board simply assume mutations happen and add up.

Oncer again no explaination is given.

Sure they always go to the first level claiming a mutation occurs then gets incorporated into the population...but then fall short of a second, third, fourth, fith and so on random mutation occurring and addiding to the last.

wimpman posted:
Troglodyte, it appears that you are having trouble coming to grips with the concept of evolution. Perhaps if you substitute the term "variation" for "mutation" it would be easier to fathom.

[b]Variation has limits.
Muutations are required to exceed the limit of varialtion.

they are given, you are just not willing to see them.

each time a variation occurs it changes that limit just a little. later after several variations have occured, it has surpassed the point where the limit was in the beginning.

dehammer posted:
each time a variation occurs it changes that limit just a little. later after several variations have occured, it has surpassed the point where the limit was in the beginning.

Wrong.
If you have red and green paint and mix them in different proportions you will only get the shades avialable from the mixing of red and green. There is a limited variation. It's kinda like micro-evolution.

Now if you want macro-evolution..so to speak... you need to add a third color that allows you to exceed the variation lmits set by the red and green.

The evo use mutations to add to the variations.
The problem is they have no working model besides MAGIC MUTATIONS that allows them to add up over time.

"The problem is they have no working model besides MAGIC MUTATIONS that allows them to add up over time."

Firstly, we do not need a working model. There is no working model for gravity when Richard Feynman wrote his Lectures on Physics. That didn't make gravitation any lesser as a theory and a fact. So your point is irrelevant.

Secondly, actually there *IS* a model for how mutations occur and accumulate. Just because you are too lazy and dishonest to look into the subject doesn't make it magical. So your point is false.

Do some honest homework on the subject.

what does two colors of paint have to do with the extreamly large possiblities of geneitics.

basically with this post your informing everyone that you are not only out in left field, but your wearing hockey pants, football helmet, a basket ball jersey, and track shoes, and carrying a javelin.

"Secondly, actually there *IS* a model for how mutations occur and accumulate. Just because you are too lazy and dishonest to look into the subject doesn't make it magical. So your point is false."

I'll tell you what TheFallibleFiend...either put up, or shut up.

Got it?

dehammer...please stop being an idiot.

"what does two colors of paint have to do with the extreamly large possiblities of geneitics. "

The post was an "analogy'.

It clearly showed how additional material is needed to move beyond the limits of variation in an already established gene pool...but you semed to be to stupid to catch on.

Once again I ask thet you evos stop doing the Mr. Bojangles and answer the questions.

"I'll tell you what TheFallibleFiend...either put up, or shut up."
The irony meter just went off the scale. I'll spoon-feed you once. For the last time, your question is stupid and betrays a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is and how it works. Suppose I blindfold you and put you on a train. At every station someone takes you off and puts you on another random train. You somehow end up in the town your grand dad was born in and think, "WOW! what are the odds!" The thing is no matter where you ended up you would be saying what are the odds? And those are the wrong odds. You don't figure the probability as 1 out of N. It's M out of N where we don't know the M, but we *know* it isn't 1.

Once again I ask that you actually do some homework and use your head for something besides rectal plug.

Do a search on: gene inversion duplication insertion deletion
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/biobk/BioBookgeninteract.html#Chromosome%20abnormalities
These are causes of mutations.

The mechanism for the accretion of these mutations is - get this: natural selection. It's mind-boggling that a person so well-informed as yourself would not have heard of the term.

Natural Selection pressure creates a ratcheting effect which can model with computer programs. (In fact I have done so.)

However, you need to read the following page very carefully:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a3

The biggest impediment to accepting evolution is in understanding it. Usually a person who rejects evolution rejects it for one of the mythological reasons based on a false idea of what evolution is and how it works.


"Got it?"

What I've got is that you are intellectually lazy and cowardly.

no, i caught it, but what you dont seem to be willing to grasp is there are the equivalent of thousands of shades of colors from ultraviolet to infrared in the paint shop of evolution. Why not open you mind a tiny fraction to let a little bit of air get in, its quite stale in there.

Dehammer,
Cut it with the insults or I'll start editing your posts.

Consider yourself warned.

Amaranth
Moderator

Dehammer posted:
no, i caught it, but what you dont seem to be willing to grasp is there are the equivalent of thousands of shades of colors from ultraviolet to infrared in the paint shop of evolution.

...sooooooooooo, are you claiming that there is enough genetic information...variation... in a worm to form a man?

Or, are you saying that the worm has a limited number of variations?

TheFallibleFiend, I visited your links and found NOTHING explaining how mutation can add up.

Perhaps I missed the sentance that tells us how it is acheived. Personally I don't think I did...but if I did would you be so kind as to cut and paste that portion?

Thanks in advance.

im saying that the dna of all living creatures on earth have the same basic components, but that they can link in so many different ways.

the main difference between a man and a worm is the length and number of genes. its how they are arranged that makes the difference between every thing. given enough time for a worm to gain the number of genes, and the right arrangement, yes it could. thing is it would take hundreds of millions of years for it to happen.

sorry, Amaranth Rose, that was not intended as an insult, it was intended to tell him that he is too closed minded. Hes not willing to let new ideas in.

"Perhaps I missed the sentance that tells us how it is acheived. Personally I don't think I did...but if I did would you be so kind as to cut and paste that portion?"

I think that there are a lot of sentences that you have missed. Now you're playing games with words. The consitution does not use the phrase "separation of church and state," but the framers (Jefferson and Madison) expressly stated that the purpose of the first amendment was the "wall of separation."

The sentences do not state precisely what you are looking for, but the meaning is clear, for someone who knows how to read.

It would help if you explained why you think mutations would not add up.

Soilguy, how many times do I need to explaine it to you?

lets start with the odds.

What are the odds of a RANDOM..did you get thet? RANDOM mutation..which just so happens to be beneficial, occurring in just the right place as to add to a previous mutation?

Balls in your court.

Let's start with the fact that you don't understand how to compute odds and go from there.

1) Random does not mean entirely unconstrained.
Consider a pseudo-random generator that produces random numbers X, such that 0<= X < 1. Such a function does return 2 or 3 or -pi. But it does return a random number.

2) I don't know how to explain to you more clearly that your attempt to compute the probability in this way is mathematical nonsense. How much clearer can I make it?

did you even notice my last post?

or how about the one in the other thread?

Your odds are meaningless. In fact, you didn't offer up any odds. Also consider:

--mutations aren't "random." Certain parts of genomes have much higher mutation rates than others.

--you are confining all mutations to point mutations, which is silly.

--mutations need not occur on the same gene to have a cumulative effect on the structure of the creature in question.

You wouldn't have such questions if you bothered to learn something about biology. That's why I asked you to explain what you envision. You don't seem to envision anything. You keep tossing up the false "odds" argument.

TheFallibleFiend...do you have any math that shows that RANDOM mutations do add up?

Sooooooo, lets see this model on how mutation add up.

Any takers?

"TheFallibleFiend...do you have any math that shows that RANDOM mutations do add up?"

I'm not aware that this is a mathematical problem. We have a method for the accretion of mutations that are beneficial to organisms. This method is called natural selection. Natural selection has been observed to happen in microorganisms.

There is nothing known that inhibits this process from explaining observed diversity. We have simulations that show very clearly that with selective pressure, mutations accrete. Those simulations are based on underlying mathematical models.

There is a vast and growing literature for genetic algorithms and evolutionary programs. There is an entire institute devoted to the investigation of these and other complex adaptive systems. That is the santa fe institute. I'm supposed to go there at the end of the month.

You can list 600 "scientists" who reject evolution. I can find you two buildings with that many scientists - but you reject quality, and quality, and prefer to make up your own math, and promote your own faulty logic.

Do your homework. Quit asking everyone else to "prove" things to you while you put your fingers in your ears and brainlessly chant "nya nya nya."

TheFallibleFiend continues with the claim...they just do.

But considering that you said there is an entire institute devoted to the investigation of these compplex adaptive systems...I have to assume for now your don't know.

Once again your evolutionism is based on faith.

trilobytes utters a lie:
"TheFallibleFiend continues with the claim...they just do. "

Clearly I have not countered with the claim "they just do."

I've explained to you very carefully in other posts, but you refuse to read them carefully.

"But considering that you said there is an entire institute devoted to the investigation of these compplex adaptive systems...I have to assume for now your don't know. "

What you assume based on poor understanding, poor math skills, and even much poorer logical facility is not relevant.

"Once again your evolutionism is based on faith."

Your failure to understand baed solely on your refusal to do homework does not equate to faith on my part.

I can't use math to prove that drops of water that fall into a cup with eventually fill it. It's logic and physical reasoning that one uses for that. We have a mechanism for the accretion of mutations. That mechanism is called natural selection.

Biological evolution does not work on the level of individuals. It works on populations. Whenever there is a population of organisms, large or small, there is variation. Some of that variation is due to mutation. If those mutations confer no benefit in the environment in which they arise, then they have no effect. If they cause an imbalance, then a selection pressure is created. This pressure is very potent. Biologists have known this for a long time, but I didn't understand the power of it until I wrote my first evolutionary program.

The least little imbalance can cause a shift in a matter of a few generations. Note that these programs do not prove evolution, as they do not operate exactly as evolution does, but onlyl analogously. They do, however, give us some insights. You can visit the santa fe site for some information on that.

So now we have a mutation that is dominant in the community. It is important to realize at this point, that this new mutation doesn't necessarily cause all of the bearers of the original gene to die out. Even if that were possible, it would not be desirable. It is beneficial - even imperative - for the optimization of the population that some non-optimal individuals survive long enough to breed.

However, now that this new set of genes is dominant, the birth of every set of offspring brings yet another opportunity for genes to be altered. The alterations can happen in a number of ways. (In some micro-organisms there is also gene exchange between them. This helps to explain why viruses and bacteria can adapt so quickly.)

This population with the new dominant gene then acquires another mutation eventually that confers even more advantage - probably that mutation has nothing to do with the first one. There may be several beneficial mutations (and many bad ones) before another mutation occurs that would add some benefit to the first beneficial mutation - but over time, there is no reason to think that this would not permit the development of new organs any more than there is cause to doubt that drops added to a cup would eventually fill it.

Sigh....once again a post on how a mutation occurs and is added to the population is presented...but the needed second, third, fourth...etc. mutation is LEFT OUT.

im begining to think that tri is just argueing for the fun of argueing. Hes not willing to learn, no matter how many times its explain. to quote a movie "the cows could understand it by now"

"Sigh....once again a post on how a mutation occurs and is added to the population is presented...but the needed second, third, fourth...etc. mutation is LEFT OUT."

I mentioned the subsequent mutations in my last paragraph. You didn't read carefully.

This is the MO of creationists. Keep asking idiotic questions and ignore answers. Later, make the absurd claim of winning the argument. Ho-hum.

"Keep asking idiotic questions and ignore answers. "

Ingoring answers the biggest one. That, and flat out lying along with a heaping helping of sciolism.

OK Trilobite. From the beginning. We know all the following from experiments.

Our genes are carried on our chromosomes. Chromosomes consist of long double chains of DNA, a series of nucleotides, A, D, G, and C for short. Each group of three nucleotides in the DNA chain programs for a particular amino acid. Proteins are long chains of amino acids. They are responsible for regulating the development and functioning of the individual plant or animal. Sometimes when DNA is replicating itself mistakes occur and some nucleotides or chains of nucleotides get mixed up. Sometimes this has no effect on the protein the particular string of nucleotides is responsible for but at other times it does. This alters the protein.

Sometimes the altered protein has some effect on the way the organism with it develops. But usually these mutations give rise to recessive genes. Therefore they too have no effect. For a recessive gene to become esablished it must be present in both parents. Recessive genes tend to appear as a result of inbreeding. If the gene is disadvantageous it will be eliminated, often before birth or even before conception. If it is advantageous it spreads through a population through the formation of hybrids.

Within any population of species there are a huge variety of genes available for each point on the chromosome. Those organisms with any advantageous double recessive gene will make up the population numbers when acted on by selection. Farmers use this idea to select the individual plants or animals they breed from.

Each gene is actually a whole complex of proteins. Mutations that lead to a wing or an eye don't have to randomly occur at the same point on a particular chromosome. As a result of mutations all species on earth change over time and space. Even you are surely aware of the spatial variation. As I've asked you on another posting: if all humans descend from one couple how come there is so much regional variation?

So finally, Trilobyte, could you please explain to SAGG what on earth is the difference between micro- and macro- evolution. Surely the difference is simply time.

terrytnewzealand, you guys do good at explaining the first muation...but fall way short when it comes to the second.

Why is that?

troll-obyte,
it has been explained clearly to you, but you either pretend not to understand or deliberately skip it.

In your view, how would the second mutation explanation be any different than the first one?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that the second, third, fourth... mutations must occur right next to the first one. Is that what you're saying must happen? If so, why?

You also seem to think that all mutations are point mutations. Is that correct?

You also seem to think that there is an equal probability of a mutation occurring at any point on the genome. Is that correct?

soilguy posted:
In your view, how would the second mutation explanation be any different than the first one?

The odds of a second mutation occurring in such a way that it adds to a previous mutation so that it enhances the benefit of an organism is unlikely. ....but then again you already knew that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that the second, third, fourth... mutations must occur right next to the first one. Is that what you're saying must happen? If so, why?

Sort of. The second mutation must effect a previous.
For example the mutation MUST occur in a a region of DNA that will effect a previous change. For instance a mutation to the tail will not effect the nose.

You also seem to think that all mutations are point mutations. Is that correct?

Mutation come in a varietry of flavors.....but the bottom line is that no matter how they occur, they must effect a previous change, WHICH is your problem as you have no explaination of how that will or could occur by a process of random chance.

You also seem to think that there is an equal probability of a mutation occurring at any point on the genome. Is that correct?

For the most point..especially if it is a beneficial mutation.

TheFallibleFiend....show me where it has been explained clearly to me and I will stop posting here.

If you can't, then you MUST retract your statement.

Balls in your court.

Troll-obyte says: " show me where it has been explained clearly to me and I will stop posting here."


Despite the fact I know he will not read this carefully, I'll repeat the following:

"However, now that this new set of genes is dominant, the birth of every set of offspring brings yet another opportunity for genes to be altered. The alterations can happen in a number of ways. (In some micro-organisms there is also gene exchange between them. This helps to explain why viruses and bacteria can adapt so quickly.)

This population with the new dominant gene then acquires another mutation eventually that confers even more advantage - probably that mutation has nothing to do with the first one. There may be several beneficial mutations (and many bad ones) before another mutation occurs that would add some benefit to the first beneficial mutation - but over time, there is no reason to think that this would not permit the development of new organs any more than there is cause to doubt that drops added to a cup would eventually fill it."

Once a beneficial gene enters the gene-pool, there is no regular mechanism for it to disappear other than mass-extinction. The question you ought to be asking yourself, if you had one iota of understanding and another iota of integrity is this: how could the mutations NOT accumulate?

"If you can't, then you MUST retract your statement."
I'll quit spouting intelligence when you quit spouting osteo-cranial nonsense.

I'm beginning to see where Trilobite is coming from. He assumes the whole history of the earth has been set up just so that he can appear and live in it for a while. Wow! I thought children were supposed to start moving away from the idea they are the centre of the universe by age three.

You see the reason why he demands a whole series of mathematically unlikely mutations? He has put the cart before the horse.

TheFallibleFiend presented the same old BS..."This population with the new dominant gene then acquires another mutation eventually that confers even more advantage"

Now TheFallibleFiend, just how does the popuation acquires another mutation?

Just because you say it does, doesn't mean it will...or can.

Mutations are happening all the time. Luckily if they alter a gene they are usuallyrecessive. Every day many humans are born with a harmful double recessive but medical science can often help these individuals.

I was thinking this through and I have a question. Why do we not start to fall apart when we get to the age where we are likely to have finished with procreation? What's to stop harmful mutations that affect us in later life from building up to the sorts of levels where we are basically crippled?

If beneficial mutations are frequent enough to produce something as astoundingly complex as a human, and harmful mutations are much more likely, then why do people survive so long?

I thought it could be that early hunter gatherers would be more vulnerable with crippled elders and would not survive as groups. But then these groups would possibly be better off with less mouths to feed, and people become old and slow anyway - so what disadvantage would a buildup of traits harmful to people, say, over 30 years old?

Blacknad.

That us indeed true...but rarely, oh so rarely are the beneficial.

In fact so rare that evolutionISM doesn't work.

So exactly how rare are they Triloblight? You seem to know, so let us in. Then demonstrate that it is impossible for beneficial mutations to create complex systems over time. Show us why it will not work. Remember how many creatures have existed since life began and therefore how many opportunities there have been for mutations and selection.

Then after that be honest - and tell us that you simply have an emotional problem with evolution. It just doesn't 'feel' right for you and you have no real scientific objection.

No rational objection!!!!

Your starting point is nothing to do with the evidence. Your starting point is probably that God did it in days. Your starting point is simply dishonest and your thinking is regressive and is likely more driven by insecurity and fear than by honest curiosity.

You don't realise how astoundingly ignorant you are on this subject, and the irony is that you actually think you are right and everyone who opposes the might of your evolutionary knowledge is mislead and ignorant and deceived.

Whenever the faithful come to this site they act like utter morons and when they can't prove their stupid points they resort to insults and threatening people with Hell etc.

I find it embarrassing to see Christians act this way.

And the funny thing is that if you just engaged in a real dialogue with real questions then people here would be all too eager to engage and explore the subject with you. They may even take your real objections seriously and explore them with you, if you were honest enough.

But as it is, you are yet another who comes here fixed and intransigent in your 'beliefs' and just want to make everyone accept your point of view. Even though it has been poorly thought out and has no actual integrity.

You are lucky people here engage with you at all, even if it is just to expose your nonsense.

Blacknad.

Blacknad, send me your home address so that I can mail you a quarter so that you can buy a clue.

You seemed to have forgotten that it is YOU EVOS who claim mutations add up over time...but when asked how it can possibly occur....I hear crickets.

chirp,
chirp.
chirp...

Why is that?

Triloblight,

I thought you might spend a few seconds reflecting upon what I had written. Obviously not.

There are three places the ignorant can go when they are challenged:

1. Carry on the failed argument regardless.

2. Resort to insults.

3. Stop to examine their thinking.

You stopped short of number 3.

And to top that, you don't even carry out number one effectively. I asked you questions and you come back with 'You Evos'.

Why do you assume the burden of proof is on the evolutionist? Oh yes I know, it's so you don't have to demonstrate any actual knowledge. You can just flail about and bait the 'nasty evos'.

And I know, better than you think, what drives your thinking on the subject. If you accept the evidence then God probably won't vanish in a puff of smoke, but your insecurity probably will.

Blacknad.

Blacknad asked: "Why do we not start to fall apart when we get to the age where we are likely to have finished with procreation? What's to stop harmful mutations that affect us in later life from building up to the sorts of levels where we are basically crippled?"

I think the short answer is that we do. I know I am! There is the theory that older people are wiser (perhaps not always) and they have helped groups with them survive difficult times. Therefore genes for longevity have been passed on even though they don't directly influence the number of offspring born. However they do influence the numbers of offspring that survive to breeding age. How's that?

Trilobyte. I happen to know Blacknad accepts there is a God. To call him an EVO is hardly an accurate description. On the subject you seem unable to get your head around I have pointed out many times that harmful mutations are eliminated, often before conception. Although beneficial mutations are few and far between they survive.

I have answered you, so you decided to stop responding to my posts and pretend they never happened.

What is the point of making untrue statements when anyone can take a look at the record of these conversations, and discover that you are being deceitful? Do you think everyone, aside from you, is an idiot?

Ahhh, because it's your theory.

Why do you evos keep refusing to post the answer?

Where have you answered me?
Remember claiming that you have doesn't make it so.

Once again I will make this offer to you....If you can present the post(s) where you answered the question I will cease from posting on this board.

My hunch is you can't.

"Why do you evos keep refusing to post the answer?"
Answers have been posted and have been made very clear to you repeatedly, however you respond like the typical creationst by ignoring answers that are inconvenient. Typically creationists will spout blather about lack of evidence when they haven't done their homework, or will call something illogical just because they don't understand it. In this way, you're pretty much true to form.

TheFallibleFiend posted:
Answers have been posted and have been made very clear to you repeatedly

Where?


Once again I will make this offer to you....If you can present the post(s) where you answered the question I will cease from posting on this board.

trilobyte, your question HAS been answered, repeatedly and politely. If you are so stubborn as to refuse to see the truth when it's staring you in the face perhaps you'd better find another place to post your nonsense.

Amaranth

Trilobite. TheFallableFiend has summed up how evolution works on the site dealing with Galapagos finches. Research on these finches goes a long way towards explainung what you seem unwilling to understand about how mutations lead to evolution. It would make sense if we continued the argument on that site rather than cluttering up every site dealing with the subject.

Once again, here it is. Please read it carefully. I'm trying to do real research and I don't have time to keep answering the same question over and over. Here's what I posted twice before:

"However, now that this new set of genes is dominant, the birth of every set of offspring brings yet another opportunity for genes to be altered. The alterations can happen in a number of ways. (In some micro-organisms there is also gene exchange between them. This helps to explain why viruses and bacteria can adapt so quickly.)

This population with the new dominant gene then acquires another mutation eventually that confers even more advantage - probably that mutation has nothing to do with the first one. There may be several beneficial mutations (and many bad ones) before another mutation occurs that would add some benefit to the first beneficial mutation - but over time, there is no reason to think that this would not permit the development of new organs any more than there is cause to doubt that drops added to a cup would eventually fill it."

Once a beneficial gene enters the gene-pool, there is no regular mechanism for it to disappear other than mass-extinction. The question you ought to be asking yourself is this: how could the mutations NOT accumulate? Short of a change in environment (the selection criteria), there is no mechanism for them to vanish.

"If you can't, then you MUST retract your statement."
I'll quit spouting intelligence when you quit spouting osteo-cranial nonsense.

Your hunch??? How many times have I said that mutations do not occur randomly throughout the genome? That fact alone blows your probabilities out of the water. Your probability argument is also destroyed by the fact that it relies on all mutations being point mutations.

You also keep asking how mutations can accumulate, given your probabilities. How on Earth could they NOT accumulate, REGARDLESS of whether your probabilities have any validity? Where would they go? How would they be dropped?

Amaranth, I present you with the same challenge...show me where it has been answered and I will stop posting here.

Untill then I have yo assume you are replying in a bigoted fashion...and don't really have a clue.

So once again...where has it been answered?

TheFallibleFiend posted this garbage as an answer....


This population with the new dominant gene then acquires another mutation


Then acquires another mutation???????? HOW?????

Why do you EVOS continue to dodge the simple question then claim you have answered it?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

The problem might be that no one can understand why you're asking such elementary and nonsensical questions, when even getting involved in the debate requires knowledge of basic biology. What on Earth do you mean "how???" Are you completely unaware of the types of mutations that exist, or what? If so, here's a treat for you:

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations

Now run down to your nearest university and enroll in Bio 101, and stop being silly.

Hello...soilguy???????

No one denies mutations happen.

The problem is that YOU can't explain how they add up....which presents quite a problem for your ...theory, oops, I meant speculation.

FF: "This population with the new dominant gene then acquires another mutation"


troll asks, somewhat disingenuously:
"Then acquires another mutation???????? HOW?????"

You think mutations stop after one gene is altered?

"Why do you EVOS continue to dodge the simple question then claim you have answered it?"

Because it was answered and you are too lazy or too stupid to understand it.

:rolleyes: How old are you? Were you sick the year when basic genetics reared its ugly head in science class? I was first exposed to this stuff in 7th or 8th grade science class.

If you can't be convinced that genetic material is passed from parents to offspring, you should be ashamed of your ignorance. If a mutation arises in the sex cells of a parent's genetic material, that mutation is "recorded" in DNA and passed on.

I'm not going to transcribe a textbook here for you. You wouldn't believe anything I post anyway. You've already rejected the websites of two major universities and the Journal of Medical Genetics.

You're making a fool of yourself, trilobyte.

Soilguy,

The purpose of creationists is not to win. They know they can't do this. The purpose of creationists is to create the illusion of scientific controversy.

There is no controversy amongst actual scientists.

TFF: That's certainly the purpose of the leaders of the creationist movement. Whether that's trilobyte's purpose or whether he honestly believes the nonsense he spews is not something I know for sure.

So far, he's:

-introduced bogus probabilities;
-attempted to change the subject when his point was being shredded;
-used the classic argument from complexity;
-rejected sources that were clearly written by authorities on the subject;
-introduced the red herring of "how can mutations add up";
-exhibited a shocking lack of knowledge.

He's similar to all the creationists with whom I've argued. Now I'm waiting for the ad hominem attack, the bifurcation and the out-of-context quotes.

Soilguy is a pretty strange fellow....what he claims I will do.....such as.... hominem attack, the bifurcation and the out-of-context quotes...soilguy has already done towards me.

Now what does that tell you?